SoÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ We do now exist! And, we know from inductive and deductive empirical scientific evidence that we could NOT have come from NOTHING. Therefore; WE HAD AN ORIGIN! WE CAME FROM SOMEONE OR SOMETHING (all said with emphasis so as to ensure there os NO posturing, equivocation and side-tracking)!

All true. Atheists don't know "what" or "who" the something was, and it doesn't matter anyway. To be an atheist, all you have to do is consider it an unlikely prospect that the "what" or "who" was a god. This has been said several times already in this thread, and I don't really understand your objection. Could you explain?

SoÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ We do now exist! And, we know from inductive and deductive empirical scientific evidence that we could NOT have come from NOTHING. Therefore; WE HAD AN ORIGIN! WE CAME FROM SOMEONE OR SOMETHING (all said with emphasis so as to ensure there os NO posturing, equivocation and side-tracking)!

We came from chemicals that were created in stars. The original bits and pieces of the chemicals came from something that happened 14 billion years ago, generally called "The Big Bang". We do not know what "caused" the big Bang.

The weak attempt here Jason, is your not having the ability (or your inability) to answer the OP questions, and positing nothing more than weak equivocations to cover for that inability. It follows therefore, until an answer is forthcoming, all you are doing is providing evidences for the premise that I brought forth in my last post.

And, of course, that includes your equivocation as per #Ã¢â‚¬â„¢s 2 and 6 in your response above.

Again, for your edification, as per the OP; from where did we come (what are our Origins)? What are the atheistic foundations to support the atheistic worldview and philosophy of our origins?

The above in an equivocation as per OP #Ã¢â‚¬â„¢s 2 & 5 PLUS, you provide absolutely no substantiation for your assertion, which makes it nothing more than speculation and opinion. Which , of course is an equivocation as per OP #1

The original bits and pieces of the chemicals came from something that happened 14 billion years ago, generally called "The Big Bang".

The above in an equivocation as per OP #Ã¢â‚¬â„¢s 2 & 5 PLUS, you provide absolutely no substantiation for your assertion, which makes it nothing more than speculation and opinion. Which , of course is an equivocation as per OP #1

We do not know what "caused" the big Bang.

Although this is the most cogent statement youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve made thus far, it really says nothing, and it just shows your faith in atheism because; from all the science (be it the historical inductive and deductive empiricism) that we have, we know it takes someone or something to start/make/create anything. So, since we know Ã¢â‚¬Å“from nothing, nothing comesÃ¢â‚¬Â it logically follows that someone or something to started/made/created all of this. Having said that, none of it answers the OP questions.

All true. Atheists don't know "what" or "who" the something was, and it doesn't matter anyway.

Actually, it matters greatly if you are a materialist and place your faith in the hope that we came from nothing, and go to nothing. But, having said that, the above is equivocation as per #Ã¢â‚¬â„¢s 2, 3, 4 & 6.

To be an atheist, all you have to do is consider it an unlikely prospect that the "what" or "who" was a god.

That is all well and good falcone, but you are doing so on faith alone (totally unsupported by logic and empirical science). Having said that, the above is equivocation as per #Ã¢â‚¬â„¢s 2, 3, 4, 5& 6.

This has been said several times already in this thread, and I don't really understand your objection. Could you explain?

Again, equivocation doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t deal with the questions posted. And that has been explained over and over. So, it doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t matter how many times an equivocation has been posted, it will continue to be exposed and/or removed.

The weak attempt here Jason, is your not having the ability (or your inability) to answer the OP questions, and positing nothing more than weak equivocations to cover for that inability. It follows therefore, until an answer is forthcoming, all you are doing is providing evidences for the premise that I brought forth in my last post.

And, of course, that includes your equivocation as per #Ã¢â‚¬â„¢s 2 and 6 in your response above.

Again, for your edification, as per the OP; from where did we come (what are our Origins)? What are the atheistic foundations to support the atheistic worldview and philosophy of our origins?

Would you accept the answers "I don't know" and "The lack of evidence for gods"?

Now will you accept that your answer is an argument from ignorance, and a logical fallacy (argumentum ad ignoratiam)?

And that is what makes it an agnostic argument, and not an atheistic argument performedge. That is why those who claim to be atheists aren't really the atheists they thought they were. There's an appropriate quote by Madalyn Murray O'Hair I'm trying to remember that fits quite nicely here.

Agnostic is not a question of religion or lack there of but a question of ability to know.

Actually, that would be incorrect. Agnosticism (within the context of the conversation) is a question of God and therefore religion:

agÃ¢â‚¬Â¢nosÃ¢â‚¬Â¢tic

NOUN:1. a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.ADJECTIVE:1. Relating to or being an agnostic.2. Doubtful or noncommittal: "Though I am agnostic on what terms to use, I have no doubt that human infants come with an enormous 'acquisitiveness' for discovering patterns" (William H. Calvin).

ETYMOLOGY:a-1 + Gnostic

OTHER FORMS:agÃ¢â‚¬Â¢nos tiÃ¢â‚¬Â¢calÃ¢â‚¬Â¢ly(Adverb)

WORD HISTORY: An agnostic does not deny the existence of God and heaven but holds that one cannot know for certain whether or not they exist. The term agnostic was fittingly coined by the 19th-century British scientist Thomas H. Huxley, who believed that only material phenomena were objects of exact knowledge. He made up the word from the prefix a-, meaning "without, not," as in amoral, and the noun Gnostic. Gnostic is related to the Greek word gn sis, "knowledge," which was used by early Christian writers to mean "higher, esoteric knowledge of spiritual things"; hence, Gnostic referred to those with such knowledge. In coining the term agnostic, Huxley was considering as "Gnostics" a group of his fellow intellectuals "ists," as he called them who had eagerly embraced various doctrines or theories that explained the world to their satisfaction. Because he was a "man without a rag of a label to cover himself with," Huxley coined the term agnostic for himself, its first published use being in 1870. (American HeritageÃ‚Â® Dictionary)

There are all sorts of agnostics including Christian Agnostics.

The only Ã¢â‚¬Å“ChristiansÃ¢â‚¬Â who are agnostic, are those who lack understanding in areas other than following the commands of Christ. You may want to consult the Ã¢â‚¬Å“Words of JesusÃ¢â‚¬Â to really understand what a Christian is.

I would be glad to accept your answer. Now will you accept that your answer is an argument from ignorance, and a logical fallacy (argumentum ad ignoratiam)?

It would be an argument from ignorance if it were a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true.

And that is what makes it an agnostic argument, and not an atheistic argument performedge. That is why those who claim to be atheists aren't really the atheists they thought they were. There's an appropriate quote by Madalyn Murray O'Hair I'm trying to remember that fits quite nicely here.

Claiming not to know how the universe started does not make someone agnostic.

Actually, that would be incorrect. Agnosticism (within the context of the conversation) is a question of God and therefore religion:

agÃ¢â‚¬Â¢nosÃ¢â‚¬Â¢tic

NOUN:1. a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.ADJECTIVE:1. Relating to or being an agnostic.2. Doubtful or noncommittal: "Though I am agnostic on what terms to use, I have no doubt that human infants come with an enormous 'acquisitiveness' for discovering patterns" (William H. Calvin).

ETYMOLOGY:a-1 + Gnostic

OTHER FORMS:agÃ¢â‚¬Â¢nos tiÃ¢â‚¬Â¢calÃ¢â‚¬Â¢ly(Adverb)

WORD HISTORY: An agnostic does not deny the existence of God and heaven but holds that one cannot know for certain whether or not they exist. The term agnostic was fittingly coined by the 19th-century British scientist Thomas H. Huxley, who believed that only material phenomena were objects of exact knowledge. He made up the word from the prefix a-, meaning "without, not," as in amoral, and the noun Gnostic. Gnostic is related to the Greek word gn sis, "knowledge," which was used by early Christian writers to mean "higher, esoteric knowledge of spiritual things"; hence, Gnostic referred to those with such knowledge. In coining the term agnostic, Huxley was considering as "Gnostics" a group of his fellow intellectuals "ists," as he called them who had eagerly embraced various doctrines or theories that explained the world to their satisfaction. Because he was a "man without a rag of a label to cover himself with," Huxley coined the term agnostic for himself, its first published use being in 1870. (American HeritageÃ‚Â® Dictionary)

Look at the bold.

See the definition above to understand where you are incorrect.

ag⋅nos⋅ticnoun1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.Ã¢â‚¬â€œadjective3. of or pertaining to agnostics or agnosticism.4. asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.

I will only accept the areas in which the two definitions overlap as the definition.

I see your bottom entry in dictionary.comDid you purposely chose that to fit your argument? Because I have never seen 1b of that definition anywhere else.

The only Ã¢â‚¬Å“ChristiansÃ¢â‚¬Â who are agnostic, are those who lack understanding in areas other than following the commands of Christ. You may want to consult the Ã¢â‚¬Å“Words of JesusÃ¢â‚¬Â to really understand what a Christian is.

That is only your opinion.

"Per theism, an agnostic theist believes that the proposition at least one deity exists is true, but, per agnosticism, believes that the existence of gods are unknown or inherently unknowable."

"Christian Agnostics practice a distinct form of agnosticism that applies only to the properties of God."

Exactly Thanos, and if you kept the conversation in context of the rebuttal, youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢d understand where you err.

ag⋅nos⋅ticnoun1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.Ã¢â‚¬â€œadjective3. of or pertaining to agnostics or agnosticism.4. asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.

I will only accept the areas in which the two definitions overlap as the definition.

It doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t much matter what you accept or not Thanos. That is, it doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t matter if you want to limit your knowledge so-asÃ¢â‚¬â€œto distinctly fit your world-view. Facts are factsÃ¢â‚¬Â¦

I see your bottom entry in dictionary.comDid you purposely chose that to fit your argument? Because I have never seen 1b of that definition anywhere else.

No Thanos, it was simply the first one I came across.

That is only your opinion.

No Thanos, that is the opinion of the one for whom Christianity is named. Anything, or anyone else is just a poseur. Again, You may want to consult the Ã¢â‚¬Å“WORDSÃ¢â‚¬Â of the one for whom Christianity is named to really understand what a Christian is.

"Per theism, an agnostic theist believes that the proposition at least one deity exists is true, but, per agnosticism, believes that the existence of gods are unknown or inherently unknowable.""Christian Agnostics practice a distinct form of agnosticism that applies only to the properties of God."http://en.wikipedia....Agnostic_theism

Again, Thanos, You may want to consult the Ã¢â‚¬Å“WORDSÃ¢â‚¬Â of the one for whom Christianity is named to really understand what a Christian is, not WikipediaÃ¢â‚¬Â¦